development

RECENT POSTS

January 20, 2012 | 10:08 AM | By

Is the crisis in Sudan evidence of aid community’s attention-deficit disorder?

Flickr, Utenriksdept

Celebrating new nationhood in Juba, South Sudan

Not that long ago, the world was celebrating South Sudan as the world’s newest nation. Actor George Clooney set up satellites to try to monitor activities and encourage best behavior.

But things have gotten worse. As the Washington Post reports, more than 120,000 people are now in need of humanitarian assistance due to ethnic conflict. CNN quotes top officials warning of famine in Sudan as the violence makes aid and relief more difficult:

“There is a looming humanitarian disaster in Sudan,” said Princeton Lyman, United States envoy to Sudan. Lyman said a lack of leadership, history of ethnic violence and the indictment of Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir by the International Criminal Court are all factors that have complicated the crisis in that country.

Last week, I spoke to a Seattle man from South Sudan for his perspective on the internal conflict, and the reasons for the cycles of violence and instability. He had been accused by some of raising funds in support of tribal violence back home.

There are lots of theories, or episodes of finger-pointing, aimed at explaining why things are going sideways in Sudan.

But one reason may be the international community’s attention-deficit response to such crises.

The Guardian has an op-ed by the director of Refugees International, Michel Gabaudan, who argues that we don’t know how to shift from an emergency response sprint to a longer-term, deliberative development marathon run:

During Sudan’s long north-south civil war, international humanitarian agencies got used to providing vital basic services (such as healthcare) for the civilian population in the south. When the war finally ended, and South Sudan became independent last July, the needs of its population began to change. The aid community’s response should have changed as well.

It’s an interesting article that examines the international community’s tendency, however well-intentioned, to respond to immediate emergencies but then fail to support the changes — economic, social, political — needed to make for lasting positive change. Concludes Gabaudan:

As we have seen in South Sudan and elsewhere, this failure to bridge the gap from humanitarian to development assistance can prevent people from rebuilding their lives. The human toll of conflicts and disasters is too high as it is. What the world needs is an aid system that can respond quickly to those crises, and provide effective development assistance – and seamlessly bridge the two so that no more lives are threatened.

FILED UNDER: Basics, development, emergency, humanitarian, relief, South Sudan
January 2, 2012 | 9:37 AM | By

Tales from the Hood takes up my holiday challenge

I’m still on holiday break but I wanted to publish this guest post from “Tales from the Hood,” an aid worker-blogger who has provided many of us with great insights and perspective from inside the humanitarian industry.

“Tales” was posted anonymously, in part to avoid causing trouble for his organization or himself. But this was also because he cares about promoting knowledge and understanding more than his personal brand.

Tales is now moving on to new things, putting the blog to bed. I’m not alone in seeing this as a loss and so I hope to convince him to continue posting here on Humanosphere.

For a start, here’s his answer to my holiday query in which I ask if we are entering a new phase for humanity in which the concept of “charity” needs to be reconfigured and if we need some new lingo for these folks we call philanthropists, humanitarians or, worse, do-gooders.

————————————————————————————————————————————–

Tales from the Hood:

Three things I wish more “ordinary people” understood about humanitarian aid:

1) It’s possible to do aid wrong. There’s always some woman at the Christmas party who, once she discovers what I do for a living, wants to talk my ear off about some awful idea she has about how to help poor children in El Salvador or Cambodia. She’s watched the Brian Williams “Make A Difference” segments, maybe Googled a few things, and now she’s got it all figured out. Then she gets somewhere between hurt and mad when I tell her that her idea won’t work. It’s clearly come as a surprise for her to learn that it’s possible to do aid wrong. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Basics, aid, aid workers, development, Tales from the Hood
November 30, 2011 | 11:41 AM | By

What’s the haps in Busan

Flickr, juanjolostium

Busan street market

Busan is the second largest city in South Korea and one of the world’s biggest port cities.

If you knew that, maybe you already know about the big “high-level” meeting there this week featuring folks like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and thousands of other top officials from around the world.

But you probably didn’t. I suspect many Americans likely haven’t even heard of Busan, or much about the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness conference going on there through tomorrow.

This may stem from the fact that many, if not most, Americans fail to understand why civilized, developed nations do foreign aid and overseas development — let alone why top world leaders, activists and others would attend such a wonky sounding meeting in some far-flung Asian city.

My job is to help you understand. It can be difficult, I agree, in part because the language of foreign aid and development is, frankly, awful. Deadly. Dull. Yes it is. But what we’re talking about here is not. This is often about life and death, peace versus war, hope versus despair. How we get a better world.

So I’ve been following the discussions at this meeting, remotely, and largely via The Guardian’s excellent coverage. As Sec. Clinton said in Busan, we do foreign aid and development because it is in our national interest to do so:

“Countries with growing economies are less likely to send refugees streaming across their borders or traffic in arms, drugs or people.”

That’s the standard U.S. political sound-bite anyway: Foreign aid makes us safer.

True enough, but isn’t this a sad state of affairs — that this is the case American politicians think they have to make?

Given the push right now by some in Congress to cut foreign aid (which is only about 1 percent of the budget), it often seems like our leaders shy away from saying this is about helping the world’s poorest. Why is that such a tough case for our government to make? It’s not a tough case for British conservatives or most European leaders to make. I wonder ….

This is the moral imperative angle, which I would say actually has a lot of support in the greater Seattle area where a substantial humanitarian aid and development community is big and getting bigger.

At the Busan meeting, Oxfam is among a number of organizations trying to shame governments and donors to keep their promises on foreign aid. Here’s a great video Oxfam made to make its case for how best to improve foreign aid:

But there are other non-shaming arguments to be made as well in favor of aid and development, such as the economic one. Here’s one such, initially confusing, case that was made by Tony Blair, writing in the Washington Post, on how improving foreign aid can help put an end to foreign aid:

Fifty years ago, the scene in Busan, South Korea, would have been a familiar image of international aid: sacks of grain stacked precariously on a crumbling dockside. The backdrop would have been a country emerging from war and dependent on outside assistance to meet the most basic needs. But when national and development leaders gather in Busan this week to discuss the future of aid, they will see a very different place: the fifth-busiest commercial port in the world, transporting advanced technologies around the globe. This, writ small, is the Korean miracle — the transformation of a country from aid-dependent to aid donor.

This isn’t rocket science. It should be obvious that it is in our economic interest to help other countries improve their lot. Yet, again, for some reason, even this remains a hard sell in the U.S. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Politics, development, foreign aid, Hillary Clinton, Oxfam
August 26, 2011 | 8:30 AM | By

Guest Post: Africa needs more investments, less humanitarians

Kunle Oguneye

Here’s another (provocative) guest post from Kunle Oguneye:

To all the young, well-intentioned, recently-graduated students of International Development or similar programs, please stay in America.  We don’t need you in Africa.  

If you would like to visit, please do so, but we don’t need any more NGOs or Community Empowerment Programs or Disease Awareness Programs.  Don’t get me wrong.  Africa still needs your help and your passion. We just don’t need you on the ground anymore. 

Where we need you is on Wall Street.  Yes, I know the big bad Wall Street.  The truth of the matter is that the inequity in Global Development can be directly tied to access to Capital.  Poor cities in Africa have a difficult time issuing bonds and raising money from International Markets in order to fund their infrastructure developments.  Without Infrastructure, micro-finance schemes for the poor can only go so far.  The farmer still has trouble getting his or her crops to the markets before they spoil.  The tailor in the rural area won’t get any customers because the roads are always flooded. 

Municipalities are the ones that need to build the roads, the drainage canals that will enable commerce to flow.  The municipalities are suffering because they don’t understand this world of high-finance, and even when they do, they are not considered attractive investments.  So, the cycle of poverty continues to perpetuate itself in the Developing World.  First, we try Farm Aid, let’s give them high yield seeds, then let’s focus on Micro-Finance, and then let’s focus on Disease Prevention.  All laudable goals, but with limited impact because we haven’t addressed the underlying need for Infrastructure Development.

So young people, I implore you, please go back to school, get a degree in Finance or go to Law School.  Go to Wall Street, where they’ll listen to you before they listen to me.  Explain to them why investing in Developing Countries will be good for global markets.  Explain to them that people in Developing Countries have buying power.  Get the Hedge Fund Managers to invest in existing businesses in the Developing Countries.

The next time I see you in Africa, I want to see you wearing a Brooks Brothers suit and holding a Blackberry. When I see that, I’ll know there’s a future for global development.

Kunle Oguneye is president of the Seattle chapter of The African Network, a Nigerian and former tech worker who now writes children’s books (which should explain the photo).

FILED UNDER: Basics, Africa, business, development, Kunle Oguneye
August 24, 2011 | 9:00 AM | By

The heroic humanitarian narrative: A force for good or bad?

Flickr, Stephen Poff

The heroic narrative is almost irresistable as a storytelling strategy.

But many in the aid and development community think it frequently does more harm than good:

  • By implying individual, private efforts (i.e., DIY or “Do-It-Yourself” aid) are somehow superior to large-scale organizational or government-run programs when the evidence (one rebuttal to DIY aid) suggests otherwise;
  • By disguising a poorly functioning program (e.g., Greg Mortenson’s Three Cups of Tea scandal) or perhaps advancing a commercial interest (e.g.,TOMS shoes) through compelling personal stories that may do more for the hero than those he/she is supposed to be helping;
  • Or by simplistically glossing over the complex political, economic and social problems that often contribute to the problems of poverty, disease or inequities these humanitarians say they are trying to solve.

It is the dog days of August, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see a fairly strong negative reaction based on these kind of concerns to a recent column by the New York Times’ David Brooks. Other such tales — though usually well-intended — tend to really irritate those working out there in poor countries for humanitarian organizations actually trying to help poor people.

NYT

David Brooks

Brooks, who is traveling in East Africa, wrote about The Rugged Altruists in which he — perhaps taking a cue from his NYT colleague Nick Kristof, champion of DIY aid — celebrates the good work of some individuals he’s encountered on his trip. Brooks opens by saying:

Many Americans go to the developing world to serve others. A smaller percentage actually end up being useful. Those that (sic) do have often climbed a moral ladder. They start out with certain virtues but then develop more tenacious ones.

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Basics, David Brooks, development, DIY aid, foreign aid, Kenya, Nick Kristof
June 16, 2011 | 11:40 AM | By

Fighting over the fundamentals of philanthropy

There appears to be a  deep-seated intellectual boil festering at the base of our discussions around philanthropy, foreign aid and development.

Those three words? I’m not sure anyone really knows what they mean.

Flickr, Erebos

I can’t see what you’re saying

Yes, I’m sure the experts on philanthropy, aid and development all think they know what they mean. But as a journalist assigned to cover this stuff — and asked to translate it into “normal” language — I’m increasingly running into debates about fundamentals, if not outright confusion.

To wit:

Felix Salmon, a brilliant and often hilarious economics writer for Reuters, felt compelled to point out that Philanthropy Isn’t For Profit.

Duh, you say? Salmon was responding to the notion, which seems to be gaining popularity in some circles, that making a profit is in fact the best way to achieve a social good. He writes:

You can’t just invest money in the stock market and declare it the best way to do good in the world, any more than you can start an arms or cigarette manufacturer and claim that your pursuit of profits is the best way to improve global welfare.

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Basics, development, Felix Salmon, foreign aid, GAVI, Matthew Bishop, philanthrocapitalism, philanthropy
June 6, 2011 | 8:00 AM | By

Development and foreign aid often fail to help the poor

Several articles came out recently that illustrate why we need to sharpen our development and foreign aid strategies. Basically, here are the two key problems:

1. Development is not automatically a good thing for the poor and disenfranchised. Often it hurts the poor.

2. Our approach to foreign aid often appears little about aiding and more about politics, foreign payback.

To the first point, Jonathan Glennie at the Guardian writes about the economic growth experienced by Colombia and how this has done little to improve the lives of most Colombians. In his article “Columbia’s Amoral Development,” Glennie writes:

Because although development can mean jobs, poverty reduction, greater respect for human rights, better access to basic services, and greater land sovereignty, it doesn’t necessarily. Believe it or not, it is possible to reduce income poverty (MDG1), and to meet a range of other MDGs regarding provision of basic health and education while simultaneously committing grave human rights abuses, disempowering the poorest, and encouraging the consolidation of power and wealth in the hands of the rich.

I also ran across this older article, also about Colombia and one of its primary economies, on the Chiquita Banana company’s “Cost of doing business” by having to pay off leftist guerrillas and rightist militias revealed  by the National Security Archive in its recently published Chiquita Papers.

And here is an op-ed, entitled the “Paradox of Growth and Poverty” from the Philippines Daily Inquirer. A similar article, about Africa, is also cited in the daily links round up below.

2. On the second point, foreign aid being little about aiding the needy: Here’s a nice quick “daily outrage” from the San Francisco Examiner noting that we provide foreign aid to many countries who are wealthy enough to buy our debt — like China or Brazil.

Speaking of China, here’s an interesting article about China getting its $2 billion in assistance funding from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria frozen for failing to distribute the money to community organizations working against these diseases. But one may wonder why relatively wealthy China is even qualified to receive Global Fund assistance?

FILED UNDER: Basics, development, foreign aid
May 24, 2011 | 8:00 AM | By

Students ask: Can you save the world?

Hundreds of students at the University of Washington packed into a classroom Monday evening for a panel discussion entitled, “Can You Save the World?”

Tom Paulson

Finding a place to sit at the UW's "Can You Save the World?"

Sponsored by a new student-run organization called the Critical Development Forum, it was an acknowledged riff on an earlier event we (KPLU Humanosphere) sponsored at Seattle Town Hall called “Can Seattle Save the World?” — this time aimed specifically at the concerns and questions of young people.

I’ve noted before that there’s something special going on with the Millennials and this event only confirmed my suspicion: They actually do want to save the world.

And they know it won’t be easy or simply based on good intention. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Basics, Critical Development Forum, development, foreign aid, Millennials, UW